According to a report in the Times Online, strict police powers designed to be used against criminals who enjoy luxury lifestyles on the proceeds of their crimes are being extended to councils, quangos and agencies to use against the public.

The right to search homes, seize cash, freeze bank accounts and confiscate property will be given to town hall officials and civilian investigators employed by organisations as diverse as Royal Mail, the Rural Payments Agency and Transport for London.

The measure, which is being promoted by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, comes into force next week and will allow some of the most powerful tools available to detectives to be used against fare dodgers, families in arrears with council tax and other minor offenders.

The radical extension of the Proceeds of Crime Act, through a Statutory Instrument which is not debated by parliament, has been condemned by the chairman of the Police Federation, Paul McKeever, who said that he was shocked to learn that the decision to hand over “intrusive powers” to people who were not police was made without consultation or debate.

Mr McKeever said:

“The Proceeds of Crime Act is a very powerful tool in the hands of police and police-related agencies and it shouldn’t be treated lightly 

 “There is a behind the scenes creep of powers occurring here and I think the public will be very surprised. They would want such very intrusive powers to be kept in the hands of warranted officers and other law enforcement bodies which are vetted to a very high standard rather than given to local councils.

His concerns are shared by leading figures, who think that that there is a risk of local authorities abusing the powers to search people’s homes, seize their money, freeze their accounts and confiscate their property. They also see a similarity with the spread of counter-terrorist surveillance powers to monitor refuse collections and school catchment areas.

Lawyers who specialise in confiscation law have been showing concern about the latest extension of the powers for some time. 

Andrew Bodnar, co-editor of a book on asset recovery law, said that the Proceeds of Crime Act has been carefully drawn up and designed, but its implementation often leaves much to be desired.

“The theory behind the law is rightb, but if these powers are to be used to seize the assets of , to take an extreme example, fare dodgers or council tax defaulters, it is very difficult to see how those aims are being met.

“The extension of these powers should be monitored very closely. The spectre of counter-terrorism powers being used to monitor people’s bin filling habits, or what school they’re trying to send their children to, should be cautionary.”

Mr Bodnar, of Matrix Chambers, said that the agencies given the powers must be resourced properly and be able to apply them “with a full understanding of the law”.

“Having these Al Capone powers in the back pocket is very valuable for a senior prosecutor but in the hands of someone less experienced and less skilled, particularly when combined with the incentive of their department collecting a share of the confiscated money, there is the potential for charges to be brought which are intended to maximise confiscation recovery rather than reflect the level of criminality concerned.”

Sir Ivan Lawrence, QC, a former senior Conservative MP, said that extending such police powers to bodies like local authorities was highly questionable.

“Far worse is the encouragement being given to non-police bodies to search for what they think are proceeds of crime but may not be and subject the victim to the draconian and manifestly unjust processes of the Proceeds of Crime Act.  Does anyone in Government understand that if you give prosecutors, who are supposed to be unbiased ministers of justice, the bribe of a proportion of the money they can find, you are actually poisoning the roots of justice in our society?”

The powers of the Proceeds of Crime Act include:

•  Freezing a suspect’s assets at the beginning of a criminal investigation 
•  Presumption that all an individual’s assets are acquired through a criminal lifestyle 
•  Search for and confiscate cash of £1,000 or more
•  Demand that banks and other institutions disclose financial information 
•  Seek confiscation order for assets after a conviction 
•  Collect a share of confiscated assets

Agencies that will be given the new powers:

• Councils in England and Wales would be able to seize assets from people who are in arrears with council tax arrears or failing to pay parking fines.
• The Gangmasters Licensing Authority Might seize property from someone profiting from underpaying wages.
• The Counter Fraud and Security Management Service investigating prescription fraud and theft by NHS staff.
• The Gambling Commission Could seize the assets of those who have benefitted from rigged betting rings.
• The Rural Payments Agency Could take money from farmers fwho have raudulantly claimed agricultural grants.
• The Financial Services Authority City regulator could seize the assets of those convicted of insider dealing.
• Vehicle and Operator Services Agency Could pursue profit made by haulier defrauding MoT or licensing laws.
• Transport for London Could go after assets of fare dodgers or ticket forgers.
• Royal Mail Might confiscate assets from a fraudulent postmaster or employee.
• Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Could recoup profits from sale of counterfeit medicines.